himynameiskhoi

[himynameiskhoi]

How can we study religion without going to a church or temple?

Religion, an omnipresent aspect of human culture, has had a history of influencing anthropologists and scholars which sparked their motivation to study and analyze religion’s profound social impacts on the dynamics of human society. Interestingly, there is a hidden, yet direct, interrelation between religion and anthropology which allows the utilization of anthropology as a tool to discover insights into understanding religion. As a society, we often interpret religion as a personal belief system we choose to implement in our lives. However, beyond this interpretation on a societal scale, religion also plays a crucial role in formulating a stable structure for societies to be built on, as well as giving rise to the implementation of rules, morals, and values. To understand and make meaning of religion, one does not necessarily have to be fully immersed in their religious practices and beliefs. Rather, understanding religion and its impact can go beyond this by engaging in productive observation, ethnographic research, and analyzing the interaction between religion and a population from a functional, structural, intellectual, and psychological point of view. The analyses can also be viewed as different frameworks that serve as bridges that connect anthropology and how this field can be put to use to explain and understand religion. In this blog post, I will discuss, at greater lengths, the different anthropological approaches to religion, specifically, from a(n) interpretational, psychological, and functional framework. As I discuss each framework, I will also outline the pattern of how religion affects your relationship with yourself, as well as how it affects your relationship with the people around you, from different points of view.

Interpretivism approach

The first framework, the Interpretivism approach, was proposed by an American anthropologist named Clifford Geertz. This framework specifically outlines the practice of religion as a model to interpret the world and formulate logical reasoning behind the “what?” and the “why?” questions. While this framework doesn’t have a direct dictation of personal values and morals, the Interpretivism approach focuses on how an individual can interpret the meanings behind their interaction with their community and the rest of the world, which can indirectly affect their relationship with themselves. Viewing and understanding the world through a religious perspective can often deliver benefits in many ways. Religion provides a framework for understanding the meaning and purpose of why we exist as human beings in this vast universe. Based on this approach, there are answers to the existential questions that science usually cannot answer and instead reassures us that the meaning-making of the universe is orderly, and is culturally, historically, and socially context-dependent. On a personal level, religious individuals tend to reflect on their ethical and moral values and align their values with the practices of their religion. In a way, these individuals are creating a religious guide that can be implemented in their own lives and possibly for their loved ones. On a societal level, individuals actively engaging in religious activities can foster a sense of belonging to one another and give rise to a community built with meaningful and long-lasting relationships. Thus, there is significant value added to the community which can then promote social cohesion. 

Psychological approach

The second and most common framework of the three frameworks is the psychological approach. The psychological approach, which was established and described by Bronislaw Malinowski, a Polish-British anthropologist, explains that we, as a society, incorporate the idea of religion into our lives to create a safe, spiritual space for us to reside during difficult times. In comparison to the Interpretivism approach, there are slight differences to be noted. Unlike the interpretivism approach, which talks about giving individuals a stable model of how to perceive their surroundings, the psychological approach offers a sense of personal comfort and provides a framework that one can implement into their personal life. Having a solid understanding of the natural dynamics of life and death, order and chaos, fortune and misfortune gives an individual confidence and the ability to accept something that they have no control over. Over time, this build-up of emotional resilience will eventually give a sense of purpose and meaning to an individual’s life, as well as assist the individual in the grievance process. This positive influence can drastically alter one’s mental well-being and potentially reduce stress in one's daily life. Although this frame tends to focus more on the individual on a personal level, the process of grieving and going through hard times does not always have to be alone. This process can often open up doors for many individuals, who have difficulties coping by themselves, to come together and share their feelings and stories. This act of engagement in trauma bonding through religion tends to alleviate the difficulty of grieving because it offers comfort and reassurance that they are not alone and that there are many people out there who are also suffering through similar situations. Overall, based on the psychological framework individuals can foster a sense of belonging and a purposeful community where people can offer comfort to each other and within one another.

Social approach

Unlike the other two frameworks that we previously talked about, the social functions framework, established by Emile Durkhiem, states that the primary function of religion is to produce and promote social cohesion through religious activities and symbols. Durkhiem believed that the promotion of social cohesion contributes greatly to the maintenance of social solidarity and social conformity. There is a clear differentiation between the social approach in comparison to the interpretivism and psychological approach, in terms of the focus (i.e. personal or social) when explaining religion. For instance, the first two frameworks (e.g., Interpretivism and psychological) we discussed argued that individuals use and implement religion in their personal lives to navigate through their life journey. The intention behind the interpretivism approach is to teach individuals how to see and translate the world around them, while the primary objective of the psychological approach is to teach an individual how to feel the world around them. With the social functions framework, individuals are re-attaching themselves to the social values of the community through the celebration of its spirits or Gods, which Durkhiem believed, was the key to a stable social structure. Through Emile Durkhiem’s perspective, he also believed that religion has a secondary role in building a social structure around religion where rulership and authority are often assigned to individuals who are more involved or active with the religion. For example, this is similar to how Popes, who are spiritual leaders, held an immense magnitude of power over societies during the Middle Ages. From my perspective, although the social functions framework of religion plays its role of engraining moral values and norms into a society, it stems from hierarchy rather than individual meaning-making. Essentially, religion forces and controls individuals on the way they act within their communities rather than allowing individuals to think and feel on their own.